The part I find funny about all of the "Slashdot readers never get laid" jokes is that I suspect that the average amount of sex amongst Slashdot readers is probably noticeably higher than the average for the population in general. I know that I've had more sex, more frequently, with more women, and with more women at the same time since I've started reading Slashdot, than I ever did before.
I'm not saying that there is cause and effect between the two, but I suspect there may be a correlation.
No, your paying for sex. You know it. The woman knows it. Just because our legal system will not allow you to sue when she doesn't keep up her end of the deal doesn't mean you didn't pay for sex. It's not a lot different than the guy that pays a pot dealer for pot, and when he gets home finds out he has a bag of oregano. He still paid for pot.
Most of what people debunk as impossible because they are "Perpetual Motion Machines" would not be perpetual motion machines if they worked. The various Magnet powered engines? Not perpetual motion. If the devices worked, it would quickly be pointed out that the Magnets were an energy source. The various gravity powered engines? Not perpetual motion. Last I checked, gravity was a type of energy. It is pretty rare that someone claims perpetual motion. They usually point to some fuel source that the "It's a perpetual motion machine!" critic is dismissing.
It is not guilt by association. If another Catholic was convicted of child molestation, I wouldn't call his membership in the Catholic Church a membership in an international child molestation ring. That isn't what happened though. What happened was that he declared his allegiance to an organization where the organization actively used their vast resources to directly support child molestation. Presumably, the poster donated money to this organization knowing that the organization used money he collected to support members of it's staff to commit child molestation.
Now, if you want to compare the Catholic Church to the internet, you would need to change your analogy. Christianity as a whole would be the equivalent of the internet, and the Catholic Church would be the equivalent of AT&T. If it turned out that AT&T leadership was systematically collecting up children and molesting them, it was well known by both the public and everyone onside the organization that this was a common practice and there were other ISPs, then yes, I would considers someones use of AT&T internet access to be supporting child molestation. I would certainly consider them to support child molestation if the DONATED money to AT&T and was going to take their moral guidance from executives who were known to be directly involved with setting the policy to use AT&T funds to keep the molesters in positions where they would continue to have access to kids. As far as I know, AT&T has not done this, and I don't know anyone that looks to AT&T to give them moral guidance.
It is attitudes like yours and the OP that have allowed the Catholic Church to continue to molest children.
Wait a minute.... A member of the worlds largest international child molestation ring is trying to defend other "Christians"??? I'm not sure anyone that would fit your definition of a "true Christian" would want you defending them.
LESS reliable than any electronic equipment
TERRIBLE friend-or-foe algorithms
Shits on your floor
Cannot be left unattended for a week at a time
Known to cause physical harm to innocent bystanders
Occasional one will kill an innocent bystander
Stinks
Put that way, yes. If there is a subject that he needs to learn, and I don't have knowledge to teach him, AND I cannot learn it well enough myself to teach him, I would definitly seek outside help. Finding language courses outside the the public schools is really easy, and an outside course combined with spending time with someone that actually speaks the language is likely to be far more effective. It is important to keep in mind that public schools are not the only place that courses are taught. A perfect example is what I said earlier in the thread (I believe it was this thread)... I didn't know the details on building Adobe structures. So, I took my son to a workshop where someone that did know the details showed us how.
The costs vs benefits do change as they get older, but by that time, most home schooled kids have learned how to learn. It is a skill that public school kids are generally not taught, so 30 minutes once a week with an expert in the subject, even via a correspondence course is more effective that the public school kids get from hours a day in a classroom. Not to mention that what the kids get in the public school is frequently NOT an expert, and frequently not any better than a random parent. So, unless the public schools are performing some kind of vast conspiracy where they are hiding all of the 'experts' from the public, a public school isn't the place to find one. The fact that the majority of high school graduates I have met don't have better than what I would expect from a 6th or 7th grade education doesn't work in favor the the needing experts argument either.
The natural drift away from parents is a more complicated issue. Why? Because while the statement that teens naturally drift away from their parents, is both true, and healthy. The problem comes in is that what you see in the vast majority of public school kids isn't a 'natural drift away from their parents'. What you see is wholesale fleeing and rebellion. Not a I need to make decisions for myself and be responsible for myself, but an us vs. them, they are the enemy relationship. I have seen a LOT of home schooled teens. Among them, a natural drift away from their parents is the norm. They head off to hang out with their friends, take courses on their own, and generally do their own thing, BUT they also swing by and say hi to their parents. They don't flee if they are by the pool and their parents come around. They are more likely to actually let their parents know what they are up to. So, the natural drift away from their parents is better for the home schooled kids.
I have no doubt that their are some not religious folks who home school to isolate their kids from the general public. Bad parents are bad parents. The other side of the coin is the EXTREMELY common bad parent that sends their kid to public school or more obviously preschool to isolate their kids from themselves. After all, bad parents are bad parents. But since you bring up the idea of keeping kids from being exposed to bad influences, I will point out that it is rarely a case of 100% isolation vs. 100% abandonment. There are a wide range of shades of gray. People also have a dramatic difference in what they think is protection vs. isolation. Some people think you are stifling your 11 year old daughter if you don't let her have weekend trips with her 19 year old boyfriend, while others think that you are irresponsible for letting you 17 year old daughter go on a chaperoned date. This is the same discussion as the teen's natural drift away from their parents. It's just that it isn't as a teen that the drift starts. It starts from the moment the child leaves the womb.
How common is the non-religious isolated home schooler? I can't say for sure, since I have never met one, or heard of one existing withing 500 miles of me. But then, if they are isolated from the public, how would I? Belief in their existence is pretty much an act of faith. Every once in a while you will hear about an abusive family that
Your limited vocabulary does not mean I am wrong. Here is a link to the definition for you since you are so aggressively ignorant that you certainly would not go look up the meaning yourself. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/depreciate
While the word depreciating CAN apply to an asset, it does not have to. As the very first definition of the word says that it is "to lower in estimation or esteem". Go ahead. Look it up.
Now that the issue of your limited vocabulary has been put to rest, I can point out that getting laid does not teach you about different types of intelligence. Smart people have sex. Dumb people have sex. Only an idiot would think that getting laid is a matter of intelligence. Heck, even flies have sex. Now, if you think that being as smart as a fly means your just smart in a different way, there really isn't much hope for you. For the rest of us, our intelligence goals are a little higher. Just in case you were confused, when people remark about men 'thinking with their penis'. That is a figure of speech.
The fact that you call me an "idiot" in the same post that you say
As for the rest of your comment: you should try getting laid more often. Not only would you learn more about the various types of intelligence that do in fact exist, but you'd also learn more about what it takes to participate in society without resorting to flinging insults and anger at anyone who dares to disagree with you or correct you where you're wrong.
Would indicate that you attribute your lack of sex to be due to you not knowing what it takes to participate in society without resorting to flinging insults. I can tell you. It isn't because you throw insults. You will need to look elsewhere for the reason you can't get sex. And when you do, you will NOT find that it teaches you how smart the other people are.
Finally, no one has argued that there are not different fields that smart people choose to focus on. The argument is about whether some people are smart, and some are dumb like you. Or, if your inane hypothesis is true and everyone has exactly the same level of intelligence, just in different areas. So, far, by your own standards, you are not "socially intelligent". You have proven that your language skills are horrible, and your logic skill are abysmal. So, your standing up as a shinning example of stupid people existing.
Hey buddy, you are an idiot. The reason you should never complain about spelling in an argument, and never use it to try to prove your point is that it always backfires on inspection. Besides the facts that no one is claiming perfection, people make typos, and sometimes they are quick to click on the spell checker suggestion, clicking on the wrong one, if argued, you too will eventually make a spelling mistake turning your entire argument against itself.
In this case we don't need to argue until you make your own spelling mistake. Why? Because your too stupid to read what you are writing. I did not misspell deprecating. I spelled depreciating correctly. Now, I know that depreciating is a 'big word' to 3rd graders and the mentally retarded, but most grown-ups, even the ones who are not too smart, would disagree with you.
The fact that you cannot understand simple English doesn't mean that I am trying to appear smart by using big words. The tactic of complaining about the words instead of the content just reinforces the proof that you fall both into the stupid and the self loathing camps.
And just to answer your question about being out competed by people that are more intelligent than me in the realm of social interaction? I feel about the same as I do towards people who are smarter than me in the realm of logic, math, or biology. Good for them. We should all strive for that. Unfortunately for you, that does nothing to support your argument that everyone is the same intelligence, and actually argues for with fact some people are smart and some people like you are dumb. Winning in social situations also frequently relies on things other than intelligence. E.g. Having a vagina is a huge asset at getting things from people in social settings. Having a vagina does NOT mean you have a "higher social intelligence". Neither does being born rich, being born beautiful, or being born in the right country. Having no ethics or morals COULD be argued as being smart, but that one is debatable. So, someone succeeding in social environments is not a particularly good indicator of 'higher social intelligence'.
So, even in your hollow snipe, you fail to show any intelligence.
As much as some people spend a ton on music equipment, most people don't. Most people are happy with mp3s and crappy speakers, so claiming that there isn't a real cost to it is simply not true. I will give you that a crappy 7.1 system isn't hugely expensive, but it is still extra cost.
The hassle isn't in the number of cables between components. The hassle is in having to set up the system every time you switch between music and movies. The hassle is in getting the speakers installed behind the couch. This means either tearing up sheetrock, or having wires running around the walls. The hassle is having to sit in a specific spot in the room to actually get the proper effects that all of the other hassle was taken for.
The question wasn't whether you would go to a mono theater. The question was would you go to a stereo theater if you had to where special headphones to get stereo. You statement about the artsy-fartsy theater clearly states that for the most part, you would go to the mono theater, since the stereo only matters if it a cgi demo.
Thanks. To be honest though, it isn't outside of the realm of what most 6 year olds could do if they were properly educated. My son doesn't know how to calculate volumes because I spend hours a day drilling him in a subject that is the focus of my life. I am not a mathematician. The fact that he learned to read just before turning 3 was not because I was a librarian. The fact that he knows about American history and Greek mythology are not because I am a historian. The fact that he knows about the solar system is not because I am an astronomer. The fact that he did his first OS install at 2 probably IS because I am a nerd who writes software for a living.
The modern idea that everyone is exactly equal, and thus everyone is exactly as smart as everyone else, just in different subjects leads people to the kind of incorrect conclusion that you just made. It also leads to poor education. After all, if everyone is just as smart as everyone else, the kid that is neglected is just as smart as the one who is taught, right?
No doubt that there are drawbacks to homeschooling. It doesn't fund unions. If you are a part of one of the school supported unions, that would be a drawback. It requires the parent to take responsibility for their child's education. It requires that you spend time with your child, so some people could consider that a drawback. Depending on your financial situation, it can be more expensive for the parent. If you are truly stupid. I mean retarded level of dumb, you might not be able to do the home school. You will also be seen as 'Weird', as doing anything outside the norm is considered weird.
Anybody in the normal range of intelligence should be totally proficient in every subject that the public schools teach 6 year olds. The "your not smart enough" line is a scare tactic that the public education industry uses against parents. It simply isn't true for 98% of the population. Can you name one subject that you would expect a 6 year old to know that you are not either already proficient in, or cannot become proficient in with an hour or two of research?
So, to answer your question, yes and no. In all of the core subjects, I do not. It isn't necessary. I have a compressive grasp of all 1st grade knowledge. In esoteric subjects, yes, I do. I did not know how to build an adobe structure. I had the general idea, but I did not know the specifics. So, I took him to a class on building adobe structures. Well, cob structures to be precise, but we did make some adobe bricks. The hot tub shown in the picture gallery is the specific structure we worked on that day.
Now, I'm sure that you are thinking "Sure, you know all of the core subjects for a 6 year old, but what about when he gets older and he starts to surpass you?". That is certainly a valid question, and I definitely hope he does surpass me. At his current rate, that may only be 5 or 6 years away unless. That is where the MOST important subject comes in. The one that has all but been abandoned in our public education system. Learning how to learn. Once a child has been taught how to learn on their own, not only can he surpass me, but there is little I could do to stop him. At 6, my son is already well along the path in the subject of learning. It doesn't take a lot to get a child started on that either. Any time your child asks a question that you don't already have the answer to, exaggerate your bewilderment. Make an exaggerated thinking face. Then make a big deal about how concerned you are that you don't know the answer. Take them to a resource that can give it to you. (Generally the internet) Then make a huge deal about how amazing the answer is, and how cool it is that NOW you KNOW. While you are looking up the answer, make sure that you point out that you are checking multiple sources just to make sure that the first one was correct, and point out to them what makes the source look legit and what makes sketchy
Personally, I do have just as much of a problem with game consoles. You are right about most people just taking the abuse if it is on a game console though.
The "everybody is smart, just in different ways" is total BS. That is what the stupid and self loathing tell each other.
I'll leave it up to the reader to figure out which group you belong to based on your self depreciating logical error in claiming that you know other forms of intelligence are more important than you could guess.
Yes. I would. The same way that I opt for the small pair of speakers in my TV because I don't want the hassle and expense of running 7.1 speak around my living room + bedroom + office as well as the hassle and expense of the extra external receivers. for all practical purposes, most TVs ARE mono. Unless you have your face pressed to the screen, the separation between speakers is small enough to not even matter.
The number of people with more than stereo at home, as well as those with enough separation for the technically 'stereo' audio on their TVs is a small minority. The number of people willing to wear headphones to get stereo sound in their home is close enough to zero to be statistically insignificant. This is with people's primary video source. The place that they watch the most movies.
So, yes. The people have spoken with their actions. If given the choice between mono and headphones, the vast majority of them choose mono.
The "OMG, its a GIRL!" comes from the fact that so many of us have met so few smart ones, or even truly intellectually curious ones in our lives. We know it isn't a genetic problem. We even meet or see (as in this case) just enough to let us know that they do exist. They may not be unicorns, but they are still pretty rare.
Before you claim I am a sexist, understand that I have no doubt that the number of smart men would be much lower if all men had to do was walk into a bar and declare that they were horny to get women to throw goods, services and, dare I say it, cash, at them. For very good reasons, prostitution has been a mainstay of human culture. As long as you follow certain protocols, it is socially acceptable. It takes an unusual sort of person to decide that being smart is important when they know they can get through life by having sex instead.
So, yes. She is hot. I don't live in a basement or Saudi Arabia, I see real girls all of the time, and not only would I love to have sex with her, but I would love to have sex with her while my wife takes pictures (that way it happened) and charges her iPod with the home made charger. You may call that pathetic, but from my perspective, what seems pathetic is to go to a nerd playground like slashdot, and expect people to behave in any way other than what the social norms of the culture dictate.
While I have generally had no problems at all with inspectors, I did have one that thought it was weird that I put in GFI outlets at all of my kitchen outlets instead of one at the beginning of the circuit. When asked about it, I explained that the small up front cost would mean that if at some point in the future, it were to trip, I wouldn't have to hunt down where it tripped. Even more so, when in 20 years, it trips, my kids, or the next owner of the house won't have to spend a bunch of time trying to figure out where in the house the breaker was located. This triggered him to reinspect the entire job, and require changes to the wiring that were both already safe and not required by code. They were relatively minor, but it was still annoying to have to do more overbuilding on a system that was already overbuilt for safety and convenience. One of the reasons for this choice was the time and hassle it took to hunt down why the master bedroom's bathroom light didn't work in a house I had rented. I checked the main breaker, I looked everywhere in the bathroom and bedroom for a GFI outlet, but couldn't find it. I eventually hunted down the offending outlet. It turned out to be that the builder had slipped in an outlet in a small downstairs bathroom that was far closer to breaker box than it was to the master bathroom. Since it was in a bathroom, and along the path of the wires going to the master bedroom's bath, they put the GFI outlet there. From a cost savings, housing division builder's, check of a list of features perspective, it probably made certain sense. From the perspective of living in the house, it was completely asinine.
That is the horror story. Not really that bad, but showing one particular guy failing at being a good inspector on a particular day. The rest of the inspections I've had were not a problem, so they are less interesting.
I would say the same thing. The really sad part is that he DOES spend time with her. Her inability to add pretty well boils down to a misguided faith in the public education system, and the teachers working in it, allowing his wife to be responsible for the child raising responsibilities, and a belief that 'fine culture' is more important than the basics.
So, he spends his time with her trying to 'enrich' her with things like trips to the museum and horseback riding lessons. These would be great if she had the basics. Unfortunately, she doesn't.
What this leaves us with is the question of what 'quality' means when one says 'quality time'. I am in the minority in thinking that it means making sure that your child can add. Most people would definitely say that making sure that their child is 'well rounded' (which often isn't) and happy (at the moment) is the most importing thing they could give their child.
They are not entirely wrong. We have to admit that it is all shades of gray. I know I have certainly run into plenty of people completely annoyed at listening to me talk to my child. I saw this just two weeks ago. My 6 year old was playing in the pool at the hotel we were staying in. He came over and commented about the depth of the hot tub I was in. So, I started a fun little conversation with him about it that included asking him to calculate the circumference, the surface area, and the volume of water in the hot tub. The two other people in the tub were clearly annoyed at hearing this. Maybe it was because they thought I was showing off. Maybe it was because they figured that they shouldn't have to hear about math while they were of vacation. I can't say for sure, but they certainly didn't feel that the hot tub of a hotel was an appropriate place to be discussing areas and volumes with a small child.
Am I too educationally oriented? Is my friend not enough? What is a 'good' education? Obviously we have different opinions on the matter, as neither his nor mine is a case of neglect. Right or wrong, given that his child is doing fine by the metrics her public school teachers use, I see not knowing how to add at 9 as the kind of thing that reinforces my decision to home-school.
So, why not give that advice to NAMCO. Pacman is not even close to original. There were run around the maze and get chased by bad guys games as early as 1972, on a home system no less.
The divorce rate statistic that I would like to see compared is the divorce rate vs. domestic violence. I have a pretty good feeling they would be inverse of each other. Unfortunatly, we would never be able to see that as domestic violence was massively under recorded in the past, and is now over recorded.
Slashdot Mirror
I would. If I could tell my car where to take me and then just work/play/sleep/eat/have sex/etc.. I would definitely buy that car.
The part I find funny about all of the "Slashdot readers never get laid" jokes is that I suspect that the average amount of sex amongst Slashdot readers is probably noticeably higher than the average for the population in general. I know that I've had more sex, more frequently, with more women, and with more women at the same time since I've started reading Slashdot, than I ever did before.
I'm not saying that there is cause and effect between the two, but I suspect there may be a correlation.
No, your paying for sex. You know it. The woman knows it. Just because our legal system will not allow you to sue when she doesn't keep up her end of the deal doesn't mean you didn't pay for sex. It's not a lot different than the guy that pays a pot dealer for pot, and when he gets home finds out he has a bag of oregano. He still paid for pot.
Most of what people debunk as impossible because they are "Perpetual Motion Machines" would not be perpetual motion machines if they worked. The various Magnet powered engines? Not perpetual motion. If the devices worked, it would quickly be pointed out that the Magnets were an energy source. The various gravity powered engines? Not perpetual motion. Last I checked, gravity was a type of energy. It is pretty rare that someone claims perpetual motion. They usually point to some fuel source that the "It's a perpetual motion machine!" critic is dismissing.
I dunno, I don't write laws so I shouldn't have an opinion. Maybe the slashlawer can opine on why these are similar things.
Are you serious? The whole point of our system of government is that YOU have a right to an opinion on the subject.
It is not guilt by association. If another Catholic was convicted of child molestation, I wouldn't call his membership in the Catholic Church a membership in an international child molestation ring. That isn't what happened though. What happened was that he declared his allegiance to an organization where the organization actively used their vast resources to directly support child molestation. Presumably, the poster donated money to this organization knowing that the organization used money he collected to support members of it's staff to commit child molestation.
Now, if you want to compare the Catholic Church to the internet, you would need to change your analogy. Christianity as a whole would be the equivalent of the internet, and the Catholic Church would be the equivalent of AT&T. If it turned out that AT&T leadership was systematically collecting up children and molesting them, it was well known by both the public and everyone onside the organization that this was a common practice and there were other ISPs, then yes, I would considers someones use of AT&T internet access to be supporting child molestation. I would certainly consider them to support child molestation if the DONATED money to AT&T and was going to take their moral guidance from executives who were known to be directly involved with setting the policy to use AT&T funds to keep the molesters in positions where they would continue to have access to kids. As far as I know, AT&T has not done this, and I don't know anyone that looks to AT&T to give them moral guidance.
It is attitudes like yours and the OP that have allowed the Catholic Church to continue to molest children.
Wait a minute.... A member of the worlds largest international child molestation ring is trying to defend other "Christians"??? I'm not sure anyone that would fit your definition of a "true Christian" would want you defending them.
Dog
LESS reliable than any electronic equipment
TERRIBLE friend-or-foe algorithms
Shits on your floor
Cannot be left unattended for a week at a time
Known to cause physical harm to innocent bystanders
Occasional one will kill an innocent bystander
Stinks
Put that way, yes. If there is a subject that he needs to learn, and I don't have knowledge to teach him, AND I cannot learn it well enough myself to teach him, I would definitly seek outside help. Finding language courses outside the the public schools is really easy, and an outside course combined with spending time with someone that actually speaks the language is likely to be far more effective. It is important to keep in mind that public schools are not the only place that courses are taught. A perfect example is what I said earlier in the thread (I believe it was this thread)... I didn't know the details on building Adobe structures. So, I took my son to a workshop where someone that did know the details showed us how.
The costs vs benefits do change as they get older, but by that time, most home schooled kids have learned how to learn. It is a skill that public school kids are generally not taught, so 30 minutes once a week with an expert in the subject, even via a correspondence course is more effective that the public school kids get from hours a day in a classroom. Not to mention that what the kids get in the public school is frequently NOT an expert, and frequently not any better than a random parent. So, unless the public schools are performing some kind of vast conspiracy where they are hiding all of the 'experts' from the public, a public school isn't the place to find one. The fact that the majority of high school graduates I have met don't have better than what I would expect from a 6th or 7th grade education doesn't work in favor the the needing experts argument either.
The natural drift away from parents is a more complicated issue. Why? Because while the statement that teens naturally drift away from their parents, is both true, and healthy. The problem comes in is that what you see in the vast majority of public school kids isn't a 'natural drift away from their parents'. What you see is wholesale fleeing and rebellion. Not a I need to make decisions for myself and be responsible for myself, but an us vs. them, they are the enemy relationship. I have seen a LOT of home schooled teens. Among them, a natural drift away from their parents is the norm. They head off to hang out with their friends, take courses on their own, and generally do their own thing, BUT they also swing by and say hi to their parents. They don't flee if they are by the pool and their parents come around. They are more likely to actually let their parents know what they are up to. So, the natural drift away from their parents is better for the home schooled kids.
I have no doubt that their are some not religious folks who home school to isolate their kids from the general public. Bad parents are bad parents. The other side of the coin is the EXTREMELY common bad parent that sends their kid to public school or more obviously preschool to isolate their kids from themselves. After all, bad parents are bad parents. But since you bring up the idea of keeping kids from being exposed to bad influences, I will point out that it is rarely a case of 100% isolation vs. 100% abandonment. There are a wide range of shades of gray. People also have a dramatic difference in what they think is protection vs. isolation. Some people think you are stifling your 11 year old daughter if you don't let her have weekend trips with her 19 year old boyfriend, while others think that you are irresponsible for letting you 17 year old daughter go on a chaperoned date. This is the same discussion as the teen's natural drift away from their parents. It's just that it isn't as a teen that the drift starts. It starts from the moment the child leaves the womb.
How common is the non-religious isolated home schooler? I can't say for sure, since I have never met one, or heard of one existing withing 500 miles of me. But then, if they are isolated from the public, how would I? Belief in their existence is pretty much an act of faith. Every once in a while you will hear about an abusive family that
While the word depreciating CAN apply to an asset, it does not have to. As the very first definition of the word says that it is "to lower in estimation or esteem". Go ahead. Look it up.
Now that the issue of your limited vocabulary has been put to rest, I can point out that getting laid does not teach you about different types of intelligence. Smart people have sex. Dumb people have sex. Only an idiot would think that getting laid is a matter of intelligence. Heck, even flies have sex. Now, if you think that being as smart as a fly means your just smart in a different way, there really isn't much hope for you. For the rest of us, our intelligence goals are a little higher. Just in case you were confused, when people remark about men 'thinking with their penis'. That is a figure of speech.
The fact that you call me an "idiot" in the same post that you say
As for the rest of your comment: you should try getting laid more often. Not only would you learn more about the various types of intelligence that do in fact exist, but you'd also learn more about what it takes to participate in society without resorting to flinging insults and anger at anyone who dares to disagree with you or correct you where you're wrong.
Would indicate that you attribute your lack of sex to be due to you not knowing what it takes to participate in society without resorting to flinging insults. I can tell you. It isn't because you throw insults. You will need to look elsewhere for the reason you can't get sex. And when you do, you will NOT find that it teaches you how smart the other people are.
Finally, no one has argued that there are not different fields that smart people choose to focus on. The argument is about whether some people are smart, and some are dumb like you. Or, if your inane hypothesis is true and everyone has exactly the same level of intelligence, just in different areas. So, far, by your own standards, you are not "socially intelligent". You have proven that your language skills are horrible, and your logic skill are abysmal. So, your standing up as a shinning example of stupid people existing.
You cannot understand a world where it is more profitable to have a 20% AMD/80% Intel mix for a company?
Hey buddy, you are an idiot. The reason you should never complain about spelling in an argument, and never use it to try to prove your point is that it always backfires on inspection. Besides the facts that no one is claiming perfection, people make typos, and sometimes they are quick to click on the spell checker suggestion, clicking on the wrong one, if argued, you too will eventually make a spelling mistake turning your entire argument against itself.
In this case we don't need to argue until you make your own spelling mistake. Why? Because your too stupid to read what you are writing. I did not misspell deprecating. I spelled depreciating correctly. Now, I know that depreciating is a 'big word' to 3rd graders and the mentally retarded, but most grown-ups, even the ones who are not too smart, would disagree with you.
The fact that you cannot understand simple English doesn't mean that I am trying to appear smart by using big words. The tactic of complaining about the words instead of the content just reinforces the proof that you fall both into the stupid and the self loathing camps.
And just to answer your question about being out competed by people that are more intelligent than me in the realm of social interaction? I feel about the same as I do towards people who are smarter than me in the realm of logic, math, or biology. Good for them. We should all strive for that. Unfortunately for you, that does nothing to support your argument that everyone is the same intelligence, and actually argues for with fact some people are smart and some people like you are dumb. Winning in social situations also frequently relies on things other than intelligence. E.g. Having a vagina is a huge asset at getting things from people in social settings. Having a vagina does NOT mean you have a "higher social intelligence". Neither does being born rich, being born beautiful, or being born in the right country. Having no ethics or morals COULD be argued as being smart, but that one is debatable. So, someone succeeding in social environments is not a particularly good indicator of 'higher social intelligence'.
So, even in your hollow snipe, you fail to show any intelligence.
As much as some people spend a ton on music equipment, most people don't. Most people are happy with mp3s and crappy speakers, so claiming that there isn't a real cost to it is simply not true. I will give you that a crappy 7.1 system isn't hugely expensive, but it is still extra cost.
The hassle isn't in the number of cables between components. The hassle is in having to set up the system every time you switch between music and movies. The hassle is in getting the speakers installed behind the couch. This means either tearing up sheetrock, or having wires running around the walls. The hassle is having to sit in a specific spot in the room to actually get the proper effects that all of the other hassle was taken for.
The question wasn't whether you would go to a mono theater. The question was would you go to a stereo theater if you had to where special headphones to get stereo. You statement about the artsy-fartsy theater clearly states that for the most part, you would go to the mono theater, since the stereo only matters if it a cgi demo.
Thanks. To be honest though, it isn't outside of the realm of what most 6 year olds could do if they were properly educated. My son doesn't know how to calculate volumes because I spend hours a day drilling him in a subject that is the focus of my life. I am not a mathematician. The fact that he learned to read just before turning 3 was not because I was a librarian. The fact that he knows about American history and Greek mythology are not because I am a historian. The fact that he knows about the solar system is not because I am an astronomer. The fact that he did his first OS install at 2 probably IS because I am a nerd who writes software for a living.
The modern idea that everyone is exactly equal, and thus everyone is exactly as smart as everyone else, just in different subjects leads people to the kind of incorrect conclusion that you just made. It also leads to poor education. After all, if everyone is just as smart as everyone else, the kid that is neglected is just as smart as the one who is taught, right?
No doubt that there are drawbacks to homeschooling. It doesn't fund unions. If you are a part of one of the school supported unions, that would be a drawback. It requires the parent to take responsibility for their child's education. It requires that you spend time with your child, so some people could consider that a drawback. Depending on your financial situation, it can be more expensive for the parent. If you are truly stupid. I mean retarded level of dumb, you might not be able to do the home school. You will also be seen as 'Weird', as doing anything outside the norm is considered weird.
Anybody in the normal range of intelligence should be totally proficient in every subject that the public schools teach 6 year olds. The "your not smart enough" line is a scare tactic that the public education industry uses against parents. It simply isn't true for 98% of the population. Can you name one subject that you would expect a 6 year old to know that you are not either already proficient in, or cannot become proficient in with an hour or two of research?
So, to answer your question, yes and no. In all of the core subjects, I do not. It isn't necessary. I have a compressive grasp of all 1st grade knowledge. In esoteric subjects, yes, I do. I did not know how to build an adobe structure. I had the general idea, but I did not know the specifics. So, I took him to a class on building adobe structures. Well, cob structures to be precise, but we did make some adobe bricks. The hot tub shown in the picture gallery is the specific structure we worked on that day.
Now, I'm sure that you are thinking "Sure, you know all of the core subjects for a 6 year old, but what about when he gets older and he starts to surpass you?". That is certainly a valid question, and I definitely hope he does surpass me. At his current rate, that may only be 5 or 6 years away unless. That is where the MOST important subject comes in. The one that has all but been abandoned in our public education system. Learning how to learn. Once a child has been taught how to learn on their own, not only can he surpass me, but there is little I could do to stop him. At 6, my son is already well along the path in the subject of learning. It doesn't take a lot to get a child started on that either. Any time your child asks a question that you don't already have the answer to, exaggerate your bewilderment. Make an exaggerated thinking face. Then make a big deal about how concerned you are that you don't know the answer. Take them to a resource that can give it to you. (Generally the internet) Then make a huge deal about how amazing the answer is, and how cool it is that NOW you KNOW. While you are looking up the answer, make sure that you point out that you are checking multiple sources just to make sure that the first one was correct, and point out to them what makes the source look legit and what makes sketchy
Personally, I do have just as much of a problem with game consoles. You are right about most people just taking the abuse if it is on a game console though.
The "everybody is smart, just in different ways" is total BS. That is what the stupid and self loathing tell each other.
I'll leave it up to the reader to figure out which group you belong to based on your self depreciating logical error in claiming that you know other forms of intelligence are more important than you could guess.
Yes. I would. The same way that I opt for the small pair of speakers in my TV because I don't want the hassle and expense of running 7.1 speak around my living room + bedroom + office as well as the hassle and expense of the extra external receivers. for all practical purposes, most TVs ARE mono. Unless you have your face pressed to the screen, the separation between speakers is small enough to not even matter.
The number of people with more than stereo at home, as well as those with enough separation for the technically 'stereo' audio on their TVs is a small minority. The number of people willing to wear headphones to get stereo sound in their home is close enough to zero to be statistically insignificant. This is with people's primary video source. The place that they watch the most movies.
So, yes. The people have spoken with their actions. If given the choice between mono and headphones, the vast majority of them choose mono.
Sorry dude, out-of-our-league smart pretty physicist trumps out-of-our-league smart pretty biologist/statician.
The "OMG, its a GIRL!" comes from the fact that so many of us have met so few smart ones, or even truly intellectually curious ones in our lives. We know it isn't a genetic problem. We even meet or see (as in this case) just enough to let us know that they do exist. They may not be unicorns, but they are still pretty rare.
Before you claim I am a sexist, understand that I have no doubt that the number of smart men would be much lower if all men had to do was walk into a bar and declare that they were horny to get women to throw goods, services and, dare I say it, cash, at them. For very good reasons, prostitution has been a mainstay of human culture. As long as you follow certain protocols, it is socially acceptable. It takes an unusual sort of person to decide that being smart is important when they know they can get through life by having sex instead.
So, yes. She is hot. I don't live in a basement or Saudi Arabia, I see real girls all of the time, and not only would I love to have sex with her, but I would love to have sex with her while my wife takes pictures (that way it happened) and charges her iPod with the home made charger. You may call that pathetic, but from my perspective, what seems pathetic is to go to a nerd playground like slashdot, and expect people to behave in any way other than what the social norms of the culture dictate.
While I have generally had no problems at all with inspectors, I did have one that thought it was weird that I put in GFI outlets at all of my kitchen outlets instead of one at the beginning of the circuit. When asked about it, I explained that the small up front cost would mean that if at some point in the future, it were to trip, I wouldn't have to hunt down where it tripped. Even more so, when in 20 years, it trips, my kids, or the next owner of the house won't have to spend a bunch of time trying to figure out where in the house the breaker was located. This triggered him to reinspect the entire job, and require changes to the wiring that were both already safe and not required by code. They were relatively minor, but it was still annoying to have to do more overbuilding on a system that was already overbuilt for safety and convenience. One of the reasons for this choice was the time and hassle it took to hunt down why the master bedroom's bathroom light didn't work in a house I had rented. I checked the main breaker, I looked everywhere in the bathroom and bedroom for a GFI outlet, but couldn't find it. I eventually hunted down the offending outlet. It turned out to be that the builder had slipped in an outlet in a small downstairs bathroom that was far closer to breaker box than it was to the master bathroom. Since it was in a bathroom, and along the path of the wires going to the master bedroom's bath, they put the GFI outlet there. From a cost savings, housing division builder's, check of a list of features perspective, it probably made certain sense. From the perspective of living in the house, it was completely asinine.
That is the horror story. Not really that bad, but showing one particular guy failing at being a good inspector on a particular day. The rest of the inspections I've had were not a problem, so they are less interesting.
I would say the same thing. The really sad part is that he DOES spend time with her. Her inability to add pretty well boils down to a misguided faith in the public education system, and the teachers working in it, allowing his wife to be responsible for the child raising responsibilities, and a belief that 'fine culture' is more important than the basics.
So, he spends his time with her trying to 'enrich' her with things like trips to the museum and horseback riding lessons. These would be great if she had the basics. Unfortunately, she doesn't.
What this leaves us with is the question of what 'quality' means when one says 'quality time'. I am in the minority in thinking that it means making sure that your child can add. Most people would definitely say that making sure that their child is 'well rounded' (which often isn't) and happy (at the moment) is the most importing thing they could give their child.
They are not entirely wrong. We have to admit that it is all shades of gray. I know I have certainly run into plenty of people completely annoyed at listening to me talk to my child. I saw this just two weeks ago. My 6 year old was playing in the pool at the hotel we were staying in. He came over and commented about the depth of the hot tub I was in. So, I started a fun little conversation with him about it that included asking him to calculate the circumference, the surface area, and the volume of water in the hot tub. The two other people in the tub were clearly annoyed at hearing this. Maybe it was because they thought I was showing off. Maybe it was because they figured that they shouldn't have to hear about math while they were of vacation. I can't say for sure, but they certainly didn't feel that the hot tub of a hotel was an appropriate place to be discussing areas and volumes with a small child.
Am I too educationally oriented? Is my friend not enough? What is a 'good' education? Obviously we have different opinions on the matter, as neither his nor mine is a case of neglect. Right or wrong, given that his child is doing fine by the metrics her public school teachers use, I see not knowing how to add at 9 as the kind of thing that reinforces my decision to home-school.
So, why not give that advice to NAMCO. Pacman is not even close to original. There were run around the maze and get chased by bad guys games as early as 1972, on a home system no less.
Sure they could. You just have to adjust the rest of the economy to match what they have around the oversea sweatshops.
The divorce rate statistic that I would like to see compared is the divorce rate vs. domestic violence. I have a pretty good feeling they would be inverse of each other. Unfortunatly, we would never be able to see that as domestic violence was massively under recorded in the past, and is now over recorded.